Here is an initial attempt at posting in the Academy. What I was wondering is this. What do you do when you violate your conscience. The reason why I am wondering this is because, as a Christian, I know what I do.....i.e. confess, repent, and renew my efforts. What do other people do? Is it that big of a deal? For me, it is a big deal because when I violate my conscience (aka sin), it's something I try not to do, and when I do (depending on how great a violation) am a usually upset. It could be something as simple as gossiping about a coworker, or dropping an f-bomb, but I want to know... what you do to change, or conform yourselves more to the personal standards that you have set for yourselves?

I very much agree with your post Kopio, I also try to always act according to my conscience. However, I find it something very difficult to assess sometimes. Eg. last night on my way home going up the train ramp this old woman was carrying a heavy bag towards the train. Now, usually I would offer to carry her bag for her, but in this case, we were only about 10 metres away from the actual train. Do I still offer to carry her bag, or will she think I'm a nut case if I do so, having already dragged the thing up the stairs and 50 meters down the platform? Or should I give money to every beggar I see? Should I do more than just give money? In a way my conscience tells me so, or so I think, but on the other hand, rationally this feels difficult...

See, I think we are all made up of physical, moral and rational components. I think these all need to be equally taken care off, but also need to work to balance each other out. None of these should ever get the overhand but need to work equally in a harmony. I'm working on that...

But......what do you do when you clearly violate it? What if it's 100 meters from the train and you just don't feel like helping the old lady? What do you do after the fact? Just say to yourself, "I'll try better next time", or do you do something to resolve yourself to making a change in your behavior??

A conscience once went to the police station to report its violation.
"Who violated you?" asked the policeman.
"My ignorant beast master."
"And how do you know that it's ignorant?"
"I had to show it how to do it!"

A conscience once went to the police station to report its violation. "Who violated you?" asked the policeman. "My ignorant beast master.""And how do you know that it's ignorant?""I had to show it how to do it!"

I would say that you CAN violate your conscience. Simply because of the fact that one may feel regret or guilt after doing an action that doesn't comply with one's beliefs or values.

I prefer 'sin' to 'conscience violation'; it is more universal and sounds less denominational. (Denominational, for those who aren't American, means whether you are a Methodist, a Baptist, an Episcopalian, etc.)

"I would say that you CAN [sin]." (Kopio, adapted)

We are all born free of sin, Kopio. If someone is taught sin and believes in it, then yes, one can sin. What to do after you've sinned? The people who teach sin also teach what God says they should do after sinning, so... Aren't you sinning by asking what to do after you've sinned?

Your initial question, Kopio, sounds to me like if a character from a Tarzan movie came and asked: What do you do when you enter a forest that is joo-joo (taboo)? Only someone from his tribe (choir) could answer something like: "I place a scary mask by the path". For everyone else at the Academy, the question would be flawed from birth (not that I speak for them).

(Our character from Tarzan would find your question as "out of touch" as you find his.)

I prefer 'sin' to 'conscience violation'; it is more universal and sounds less denominational. (Denominational, for those who aren't American, means whether you are a Methodist, a Baptist, an Episcopalian, etc.)

"I would say that you CAN [sin]." (Kopio, adapted)

We are all born free of sin, Kopio. If someone is taught sin and believes in it, then yes, one can sin. What to do after you've sinned? The people who teach sin also teach what God says they should do after sinning, so... Aren't you sinning by asking what to do after you've sinned?

I favor expiation through mortification.

Many places in the Bible indicate the close connection between our actions, good or evil, and our conscience so to call sin a violation of our conscience is not to far fetched. Of course sin is not only that.
To say that Kopio was sinning when he asked his question is false.
He explained what he does; (confess, repent, and renew my efforts) but he wants to know what others do.
I am quessing that he called sin a violation of conscience to include non-christians in the discussion.

I assume he is going with the meaning of conscience to be "the distinction (or ability to distinguish) between good and bad". What do I do when I do something I recognize as bad? Unless it really makes me feel awful (when someone I care about or sympathize with is harmed), I don't worry too much about it. Some of the things that you might feel bad about would hardly phase me at all (e.g. swearing, gossiping, sodomy!), but if something I did really did disturb me then I would keep the memory as a reminder to avoid a similar situation. I certainly don't see the point in focusing on negative things I have done or in dwelling on them, as so many other people do, and as I would suggest "confessing, repenting, and renewing one's efforts" may fall under. But of course as a non-Christian, I don't have someone always looking over my shoulder

"To say that Kopio was sinning when he asked his question is false." (Bert)

In the case of Kopio, I'm sure that you're right, Bert. I don't think that Kopio was asking because he had doubts about his religious laws, but to start a discussion, like you say. My point was that those who create religious laws create also the punishment for breaking them, no questions asked.

"I am guessing that he called sin a violation of conscience to include non-christians in the discussion." (Bert)

That's a good guess, Bert. It didn't work for me. I would go for: "What do you do when you violate your religious or moral precepts?"

Bardo de Saldo wrote:"I prefer 'sin' to 'conscience violation'; it is more universal and sounds less denominational. (Denominational, for those who aren't American, means whether you are a Methodist, a Baptist, an Episcopalian, etc.)

The reason I chose "violate your conscience", was so I could include those here in the Academy who consider the idea of sin as outdated and overly religious. I meant this to be a philosophical question, rather than a religious one.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:We are all born free of sin, Kopio. If someone is taught sin and believes in it, then yes, one can sin.

Here is one of the places where we part ways.....I do not believe we are born free of sin. Do you have children?? I do....and I never had to teach my children to lie, or be selfish, or throw a fit when they didn't get their way. As a matter of fact, I have always tried to teach them just the opposite. IMHO, "sin" isn't a taught thing, I would say that some specific "sinS" are taught or learned, but the underlying principle of "sin" is something that we, by our own nature, do naturally. But here we are digressing more into theology than I wished to, the objective in my initial post wasn't to speak of the depravity of man, it was to seek out other people's views as to reconciling themselves to the wrong actions that they take.

benissimus wrote:I assume he is going with the meaning of conscience to be "the distinction (or ability to distinguish) between good and bad". What do I do when I do something I recognize as bad?

This is exactly what I mean. I really didn't mean for it to be a convoluted statement!

benissimus wrote:Unless it really makes me feel awful (when someone I care about or sympathize with is harmed), I don't worry too much about it. Some of the things that you might feel bad about would hardly phase me at all (e.g. swearing, gossiping, sod0my!)...

I do recognize that for the most part conscience is a relative thing (philosophically speaking).

benissimus wrote:...but if something I did really did disturb me then I would keep the memory as a reminder to avoid a similar situation. I certainly don't see the point in focusing on negative things I have done or in dwelling on them, as so many other people do, and as I would suggest "confessing, repenting, and renewing one's efforts" may fall under. But of course as a non-Christian, I don't have someone always looking over my shoulder

I would suggest that what you and I do are not all that different! Other than repenting, you...
1) recognize that what you did is wrong (i.e. confess), and
2) keep the memory as a reminder to avoid similiar situation. (i.e. renew one's effort.

FWIW, I do NOT try to dwell on the negative things that I have done. I don't sit around and meditate upon my past moral failures (some of which, I promise Beni would make you blush), rather I try to continue moving forward and becoming a better human being.

Kopio wrote:Here is one of the places where we part ways.....I do not believe we are born free of sin. Do you have children?? I do....and I never had to teach my children to lie, or be selfish, or throw a fit when they didn't get their way. As a matter of fact, I have always tried to teach them just the opposite. IMHO, "sin" isn't a taught thing, I would say that some specific "sinS" are taught or learned, but the underlying principle of "sin" is something that we, by our own nature, do naturally. But here we are digressing more into theology than I wished to, the objective in my initial post wasn't to speak of the depravity of man, it was to seek out other people's views as to reconciling themselves to the wrong actions that they take.

I would agree with Kopio. I also have children and will concur that they are not taught to sin, it comes naturally.

Interesting discussion, I look forward to participating more in the near future.

It should be pointed out that committing an act as a child or infant that is widely considered to be "sinful" is not the same thing as being born sinful (ie Original Sin). That would only prove that we begin to sin at a very early age. Original Sin traditionally refers to the idea that we inherit the burden of sin by virtue of our birth as humans, which has nothing to do with violating our conscience.

Furthermore, if sin is a violation of conscience, then we are assuming that a conscience is something fully devolped at birth. From what I understand, the general consensus among psychologists is that the capacity for empathy is the result of a slow development, which typically doesn't become effective until middle-childhood, and perhaps later or even never in certain extreme cases. Also, distinguishing between "right" and "wrong" (ie having a conscience) should not be confused with knowing what makes Mom and/or Dad "happy" or "angry"---which children (and other animals for that matter) seem to learn quickly. (Or perhaps "knowing right from wrong" is exactly the same thing as knowing what makes Mom and/or Dad "happy" or "angry", but then the reality of sin and objective morality could be thoroughly scrutinized.)

I have a very small son, Kopio, and his behavior is not sinful. If I agreed to everything you've said about the meaning of conscience violation, you would have to agree that a small child doesn't have that kind of conscience, the one that knows right from wrong. I remember being a child and being taught (without me having to ask!) sin much before I developed a moral conscience.

Swiftnicholas has put it so well, that I'll just present the laws of civilized countries to back our point.

Actually, I was quite glad to see the fella with the long rife back! For the record....are you a member of the NRA??

Bardo de Saldo wrote:I have a very small son, Kopio, and his behavior is not sinful. If I agreed to everything you've said about the meaning of conscience violation, you would have to agree that a small child doesn't have that kind of conscience, the one that knows right from wrong.

I would agree with you that a child doesn't have nearly as developed of a conscience as a grown-up does.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:Swiftnicholas has put it so well, that I'll just present the laws of civilized countries to back our point.

I would also agree that Swiftnicholas has put it well. But now that there are finally a few people involved in our discussion that has turned to "sin" both of the "original" variety and the "extra-crispy" (a poor joke for stateside diners) can we get back to the original question..........

What do you do when you do something that either.......

goes against your moral grain...can be considered sin (if you beleive in such a thing)violates your conscience....or just makes you feel like a plain heel for doing it?????

Bardo de Saldo wrote:I favor expiation through mortification.

Can you explain to me what this means in practical terms??? Can you give me an example of how you "mortify" youself?? To me this sounds even more strange then the Tarzan example you shared with us earlier.

My point in all of this is WHAT DO YOU DO????? I know perfectly well what I do.....but what do you do??? Does it cleanse you, create a sense of relief, well being, or free you from guilt?? I undrestand religious/theological ideas very well on this subject. I originally wrote to see what everybody else does in these sorts of instances. Quite honestly I feel as if Benissimus has been the only person so far to honestly try and answer my question.

goes against your moral grain... can be considered sin (if you beleive in such a thing) violates your conscience.... or just makes you feel like a plain heel for doing it?????

What do I do? Well, I don't repent or pray or do anything like that so the answer is a bit complicated. It depends what I have done, every situation is different and requires a different action. Some times I might kick myself for doing something that is not actually that bad, ie I've not hurt anyone, but I still feel is wrong. In those cases there's not point in going and saying sorry to anyone, I just worry about it at night and go over the situation again and again in my mind and wonder how I could have been so stupid - note that next time I'm in a similar situation I normally don't make the same mistake again. Basically what I do is try to understand why I 'violated my conscience'.
If I have hurt someone - that's always difficult, because it really does depend on the situation so much. I always try to make it up to people, but I know that sometimes I'm not very good at it.
Basically I can only get my conscience to rest when I know that I've made an effort to repair the damage, even if that is just to go over it again in my mind to make sure that I don't do such a thing again. That might be a bit like what you do when you confess, but I don't know, please tell me what exactly these confession etc mean to you, how does that help you clear your conscience?

Sorry Kopio, the least I could have done was answer your question before rambling.

I suppose essentially I do something very similar to you, but I might describe it differently.

I prefer to think of confession as an acknowlegement; for me it is a matter of being honest with myself, and not entering into denial through repression or rationalization. The actual feeling of guilt or regret signals a confession to myself. I usually avoid the term confession because I associate it with the Catholic idea of confession, where you are seeking absolution from an external authority who will then restore your soul to the state necessary for obtaining eternal life and avoiding eternal punishment.

I'm not sure whether or not I repent. I suppose I do repent in the appropriate situations, meaning that I apologize and seek the forgiveness of somebody who was hurt or troubled by my actions. Personally, I find this a very difficult thing to do. Because it requires a great deal of honesty and strength, I value those experiences very much: the important apologies that I've made have been times of incredible personal growth.

But, of course, I also try to avoid having to apologize in the future. Again, the actual feeling of guilt or regret forces me to think about the situation, and to imagine how I would avoid doing something similar in the future, which usually involves recognizing my anger and restraining myself. (This just made me think of Eph.4.26[face=spionic]o)rgi/zesqe kai\ mh\ a(marta/nete[/face])

I guess confession is something internal that happens to me based on my emotion and experience; a theraputic honesty. I suppose repentance is the deliberate external action I take to repair something I've previously harmed. And renewing my effort is the reflection and learning and planning that is such a beautiful part of human intelligence.

I could ramble on and on when dealing with such large questions. I should also mention that I don't see guilt as proof that something was "wrong"; I know some people who feel guilty whenever they are part of an uncomfortable situation, regardless of whether their actions are positive or not. But that does not mean that guilt is a useless thing, but rather a very important tool.

Thinking about all of this has made me even more curious to see how other people describe their experiences with guilt and regret, and their reaction to it. Thanks for initiating the conversation Kopio.

"Can you explain to me what this means in practical terms??? Can you give me an example of how you "mortify" youself??" (Kopio)

Mortification: the mortifying of the body and appetites.

To mortify: To discipline one's body and physical appetites by self-denial and austerity. Its practice comes in two varieties: active and passive; eventually they both lead to death, like the name implies. Like the hours, omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.

goes against your moral grain...can be considered sin (if you beleive in such a thing)violates your conscience....or just makes you feel like a plain heel for doing it?????

I believe in confession, repentance, and then forgiveness. The Bible teaches that when we sin (violate our conscience), we have to confess what we have done to God, repent of our actions, and receive God's forgiveness. If our sin has hurt someone in the process, we must also ask forgiveness from them and make amends for our actions. These actions require that we humble ourselves and take responsiblity for our actions. I, for one, sometimes have difficulty doing this but I am commanded to by my Lord and Saviour.

Sorry, I know you did not intend to swerve into a religious thread but I could not answer the question any other way.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:Well, Kopio, now that we've shared our beliefs, repassed consciences --fresh and pickled-- and quenched our thirst for testimonials, are you going to present us with an argument?

Ah Bardo, my friend, the point of my post wasn't to present an argument. The point was to get inside someone's head other than my own. I don't have much of a desire to argue about beliefs. I will argue opinion with you all day, but I feel no need to argue my beliefs with you, or anyone else. I know what I believe, I truly believe what I believe, and if you don't believe what I believe, you are simply mistaken!

It is not that I have the whole cosmos figured out, it is merely that I feel I have arrived at an understanding of those things which are most pertinent for living in the here and now (as well as those things for living in the there and later) I have not come upon these beliefs by foolishness, nor intellectual sui cide (which I feel some that believe what I believe have done), rather I have skeptically and rationally thought them through. Perhaps at this point what should be asked is, "Why do you believe what you believe?"

Bardo de Saldo wrote:Another question, dear Kopio? Those are hard to debate. You’ve missed your turn; I’ll make a statement inspired in your thread that I find debatable:

Once again you've missed it. My point is not to debate, my point is to inquire of others on a philosophical level. I have no wish to take a dogmatic stance, I merely desire to know what others do and feel.

Trying to steer this thread (more driving than leading involved) into something that doesn't violate the Rules of the Academy is not missing the point.

On the contrary my dear Bardo!

Raya...as found in Rules of the Academy wrote:Furthermore...

Please stay on topic. If you find yourself inspired by what you read to discuss/debate a different topic, please post it in a new thread.

Which is precisely what I suggest you do, rather than hijacking my thread. The purpose of this thread was explicitly stated several times, and yet you insist on making it something it isn't. This thread has nothing to do with whether or not sin, or unicorns are real, this thread has to do with how you philosophically rectify yourself to your deeds when said deeds go against your moral fiber. Once again....it's not about unicorns

I am not a highjacker, dear Kopio, I am your [welcome] thread guest, always to the point.

[...] this thread has to do with how you philosophically rectify yourself to your deeds when said deeds go against your moral fiber." (Kopio)

That sounds more like business. I showed you my version of the game, would you show me yours? How do you put "philosophically" together with "rectify yourself to your deeds [...]"? Are you starting with part 3 (ethics) without the physics and the logic? Are we supossed to guess now what those missing parts are? That sounds fun!

What I meant was that I treat sin the way Kopio does, ie: ...as a Christian, I know what I do.....i.e. confess, repent, and renew my efforts.The confession would be to God and, if applicable, to the person(s) involved. No need for an argument here, it is my position based on the Bible.
Now the question is; What does someone who does not put any stock in the teachings of the Bible, do after (s)he has committed an offence?
No need for an argument here either.

'No need for an argument here, it is my position based on the Bible." (Bert.)

There is never a need for an argument. Your position is valid and respectable, but it isn't philosophical. This is the philosophical subforum, not the Autos de Fe subforum (the original variety, not the extra-crispy).

If St. Augustine is beyond your spectrum, you might want to think of Martin Luther. When he posted his protests at a church's door, would you say that he used philosophy or Bible-thumbing to justify his ideas?

Come forward, Christians! Otherwise you'll be proving to the agnostics in this forum that they are right when they think that Christians can't philosophize!

Bardo de Saldo wrote:There is never a need for an argument. Your position is valid and respectable, but it isn't philosophical. This is the philosophical subforum, not the Autos de Fe subforum (the original variety, not the extra-crispy).

I disagree that Bert's position is not philosophical. I have no training in philosophical debate but there is no higher philosophy than that of the Bible.

What is the exact point that you are wanting to debate? If you will start another thread, I will be happy to participate. I will admit to you up front though that any position I take will be based on the teachings of God as written in the Bible.

I'm not an expert either, as the experts might tell you; but to be a philosopher you don't need to be wise, you only have to love wisdom.

"I disagree that Bert's position is not philosophical." (Rhuiden.)

I agree. I'll rephrase: Bert's position is philosophically unsubstantiated.

Let's start with the dictionary:

"phi·los·o·phy (fĭ-lŏs'ə-fē)
n., pl. -phies.
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7.A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8.A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
[Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek philosophiā, from philosophos, lover of wisdom, philosopher. See philosopher.]"

9. My own definition: The art of turning ideas into dogma.

.

"What is the exact point that you are wanting to debate? If you will start another thread, I will be happy to participate." (Rhuiden.)

I want to debate this thread's point: The ethics of sin. Threads here don't belong to their creators, but to the ideas presented by them.

"I will admit to you up front though that any position I take will be based on the teachings of God as written in the Bible." (Rhuiden.)

Here's some pointers, using Martin Luther's 95 theses as an example. (Underlinings and parenthesis are mine.)

DISPUTATION OF DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER ON THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF INDULGENCES

OCTOBER 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light,
the following propositions (note the difference in meaning between 'proposition' and 'fact') will be discussed at Wittenberg,
under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther,
Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in
Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that
those who are unable to be present and debate orally with
us,
may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam
agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be
repentance. (Thesis. Note the difference in meaning between 'thesis' and 'God's word'.)

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance,
i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by
the priests. (Argument on the statement.)

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no
inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers
mortifications of the flesh. (Argument on the statement.)

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as
hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward
repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom
of heaven. (Conclusion based on theses 1,2 and 3.)

[5.-17]

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that
they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of
increasing love. (Proof by reason is philosophical proof, proof by Scripture is something else. I think that if M.L. didn't value proof by reason, he wouldn't have mentioned it.)

[19.-22]

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission
of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission
can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very
fewest. (Logic.)

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the
people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding
promise of release from penalty. (Logical conclusion.)

[25-89]

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

(I rest my case. As you can see, Rhuiden, Luther makes 95 points without saying once "because God commands me" or "because this is how I interpret Chapter 6, verse 24 of whatever book.)

Bardo de Saldo wrote:(I rest my case. As you can see, Rhuiden, Luther makes 95 points without saying once "because God commands me" or "because this is how I interpret Chapter 6, verse 24 of whatever book.)

I will agree with this statement but I think you are missing the meaning of Luther's 95 points. The whole purpose of his thesis was that the Catholic church was not following the commands of God as written in the Bible according to his interpretation. It would have been redundant to say it with every one, or several, of his points.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:I want to debate this thread's point: The ethics of sin.

Excellant...should be an interesting discussion.

Also, in a previous post you said something along the lines that those who define sin also define the consequences of sin (I had to paraphrase, the system would not let me go back far enough to get the exact quote...I hope it is close to your meaning...if not I will correct and appologize in a future post).

If this was your meaning I would agree. You seemed to imply, though, that men define sin and its consequenses. I would not agree with this. Sin, and it consequenses, is defined by God. Therefore, "the ethics of sin" are set by God. We are ultimately responsible to Him for our behaviour and should devote ourselves to the study of His word and finding His plan for our lives. In Luther's thesis, he was pointing out that the Catholic church was not teaching this. He was advocating the return to the philosophy taught in the Bible.

Sorry if my answer rambled. I have been away for a while and am out of practice.